ASSIGNMENT ON

“CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF RTI ACT, 2005”

SUBMITTED TO:

(Mr. Rupaksh Sharma)

(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR)

(FACULTY OF “RTI”)

SUBMITTED BY:

SHIVANI RAI

ROLL NO.-

16FLICDDN01071

BATCH (2016-2021)

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

9th APRIL

ICFAI LAW SCHOOL,

ICFAI UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE RTI ACT, 2005

The RTI Act makes the right to information as a tool to check upon the misuse of the
discretionary power of administrative authorities but it suffers from several drawbacks which
weaken the position of the right to information. The drawbacks are as follows:

Section 2(h) defines the term ‘public authority’ but it does not give a comprehensive and
exclusive definition of public authorities which might create confusion. The term ‘Public
Authorities’ includes Non-government organization which are funded by the government
either directly or indirectly but there are some NGOs which are funded by the public then the
question has been arising that whether these NGOs falls within the category of public
authorities or not. Temples appeared not as public authorities because they are funded by
trusts but in many cases, the Supreme Court considered temple as public authorities. So, here
also there is no clear picture in the Act whether the temples considered as public authorities
or not.

Another loophole in this Act is absence of contempt provisions, this stated that the
information commission shall be binding but the provision of ‘contempt of court’ is absent
due to which it cannot force or compliance to the public to follow the rules. the absence of
‘contempt of court’ make the non-compliance of the order passed by the information
commission .there must be provision insert in this Act.

And there is no penalty upon appellate authority; the applicant should receive the information
requested in the RTI application within 30 days of receiving such application and within
forty-eight hours in case of life and liberty as per Section 7(1) of the act. But if that limit
exceeds or in no limitation times period this work not done then there is no proviso or
concept introduced. It is necessary because it makes the whole process lazy and wasting
without any penalty.

It provides that serviceman also become Central Public Information Officer [CPIO] even if
they don’t have any knowledge about the Act and work still they appointed as the additional
duty. As the dealing with the RTI application is necessary and the relevant information is
required and dealing with the applicant is very crucial and important but the qualification of
CPIO is not given and not mentions anything about the qualification. And training should be
provided to the fresher persons and the appellate authority and review them from time to time
about the amendment test along with the training should also be conducted so they can get the
information and knowledge.

There are various other loopholes in the Right to Information Act, 2005 which create hurdle
in better administration and to fulfil the objectives of this Act. RTI Act, 2005 which ensure
that information must be delivered to the public within 30 days of application and if the
public officer fails to provide information within prescribed time so, the penalty will impose
upon officers.  It is not practically possible that in each case, that all the information is
collected accurately within time, to the applicant. There are various factors which cause delay
to deliver information like elections, holidays, emergency, disaster management, and old data
from different branches which talk a long time to recover etc.

The information which is providing to the applicant can be any for either soft copy or hard
copy. It is also not necessary that each public information office which is situated in hilly,
rural and village area have the proper facility of fax, telephone, electricity, internet facility.
Lack of infrastructure and facilities may also delay in delivery of information to the
applicant. Now, a day’s people started misusing the information which is collected from the
Public information office. The primary objective is to provide information for public welfare.
But, in today’s era, the aim of the act is defeated and it is becoming the tool of the person
with the malicious intention to harass their co-operation and blackmail their colleagues etc.

There are many provisions in RTI Act, which impose obligations, duties responsibilities as
well as a penalty upon public officer but no provision for the appreciation for their hard
works, which create a situation of de-motivation in the mind of public employees. Act also
not provides any kind of protection to the whistleblower. Basically, Whistleblowers get
information with the help of right conferred under the RTI Act, from public information
office and give the report to Civil Vigilance Commission (CVC) about corruption, illegal
works, malpractices etc. Whistleblower Protection Act is introduced by the government in
2014 but that Act has many loopholes and no proper protection provided to a whistleblower
in RTI Act which makes the worst condition for a man who raises their voice against
injustice. Poipynhun Majaw murder case (2018), Nanjibhai Sondarva murder case (2018),
Bhupendra Vira murder case (2016), Nandi Singh murder case (2012) etc. are the example of
whistleblower murder cases.
 CONCLUSION

Right to information is a weapon in the hands of citizens of the country to know the functions
performed by public authorities, the purpose of the public transaction said to done in the
name of the public act and the source of finance to discharge such functions. Right to
information exists before the enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005 because it is
considered as one of the fundamental rights within the purview of Article 19(1)(a). This right
promote transparency, accountability in function discharge by public authorities. Although
Right to information is considered as advancement in India it suffers from several drawbacks
which need to be revised and improved.